Connect

Travel Blog: Vietnam

A
few days back I returned from a great research trip to Vietnam as part of our South China Sea project here at CNAS.
My interviews and conversations were fabulous and extremely helpful for determining
how to frame that region’s natural resource issues in terms of their U.S. security
relevance.

It is clear to anyone who reads the news that resources are serving as a driver (or an excuse, depending on your views) for
conflict in the South China Sea, but they equally provide options for new areas
of cooperation. What all this means in detail, though, is far less straightforward
than just tallying up the maritime resources at stake or drawing exclusive
economic zone lines on maps. There is much great work out there on human
security issues in this region, directly environmental research (sans security considerations), and Stimson in
particular has done great
work on transboundary water issues and related topics. This is all
informing our work, but we’re also now working to place this piece properly in
the context of the broad maritime security questions, hanging military balance
and other hard security topics facing the United States for this increasingly tense region.

In
this endeavor, part of the research Will and I are doing involves comparing
regional, national and local dynamics that will combine to help determine the
paths chosen by the countries bordering the South China Sea with their resource
issues. As a kind of case study, my research pointed me toward doing just that
for Vietnam, with a heavy focus on the effects of climate change on its
existing natural resource strains and goals.

In
particular, since Japan’s tragic earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters, a
question pressing into my analysis has been this: can we actually adapt to the
effects of climate change? Will it be possible to minimize the pain that this
is going to cause, especially for some of the world’s most vulnerable
populations? Japan is one of the world’s most technologically capable nations
and has advanced planning for worst-case disaster scenarios, yet its losses are still tremendous. Will even our best
efforts prove ineffective? These questions get to the heart of how we plan the country's future approach to the South China Sea, in particular in thinking through HA/DR needs, new topics for mil-to-mil cooperation, and soft power policies.

With
these questions in mind, I spoke to central and local government officials,
academics, non-governmental organizations and businesspeople to get a better
sense of how resource and environmental issues were playing a role in Vietnam on shore and at sea.
I remained far broader than the “can we adapt” question in my discussions, not
wanting to lead those I was conversing with in preconceived directions. My
broader findings will inform how we discuss resources in our report later this year, but I’ve already written up my
initial impressions on the climate change adaptation question, which Current Intelligence was kind enough to
publish.

As
I wrote, “My overwhelming sense is that many of the first steps needed for
adaptation are happening, and that with the proper resources, the prospects are
fairly good that Vietnam can avoid some of the most destabilizing conditions
that climate change could trigger.” I outline the basic reasons for this
optimism, but I have to admit that I was surprised that I came away feeling at
all hopeful given my concerns going in that our tilting toward adaptation
(rather than mitigating contributions to climate change) was a path fraught with
peril.

There
is still much important work to be done in implementing a lot of the good
adaptation work in planning in Vietnam and elsewhere. But if my cautious
optimism isn’t misguided, this has bearing on how we should consider policy
options for cooperation in the region. Much natural resource and environmental
cooperation is backed financially by developed countries or NGOs, and their
confidence that funding will be spent effectively and with real results is
critical – especially in the tight budget environment we’re in. Efficacy and
progress also make cooperation and soft power more attractive to decision
makers who are choosing the character of their country’s role in their
surrounding region. If cooperation doesn’t actually enhance stability (or, at
best, drive economic growth and other positive effects), it makes it that much
harder to convince countries that their most effective posture won’t be a
competitive one.

This
is all just the tip of the iceberg in terms of findings from my research and thoughts
on how this work may contribute to broader U.S. security and foreign policy
strategy. Vietnam is witnessing a lot of movement on climate change in recent
months, and as some of its biggest changes become public we’ll be sure to
update you on them and help explain their security relevance. These are exciting
times for Vietnam and the South China Sea broadly.